Meta has agreed to provide businessman Denis O’Brien with information about those behind what he says are “false and malicious” advertisements on its platforms containing his name and image, the High Court heard.
Mr O’Brien claims that since last August his name and image have been used in a series of fake adverts in “a clear campaign to promote dubious financial schemes including cryptocurrency investments” to users of the social media platform’s services via Meta Ads.
Mr O’Brien says he has nothing to do with these schemes advertised on the Facebook and Instagram platform and the ads are defamatory.
He also claims the ads breach his rights to privacy, and his good name, his rights under GDPR and his property rights.
Donald Trump is changing America in ways that will reverberate long after he is dead
The jawdropper; the quickest split; the good turn: Miriam Lord’s 2024 Political Awards
The mystery is not why we Irish have responded to Israel’s barbarism. It’s why others have not
Enoch Burke released from prison as judge doubles fine for showing up at school
He seeks damages for defamation, malicious falsehood, unlawful appropriation of his property, passing off, and for various alleged breaches of the data protection law and his constitutional rights.
He intends to bring his proceedings against the parties behind the adverts as well as Dublin-based Meta Platforms Ireland Limited, which is where the social media giant’s European HQ is located.
He also seeks injunctions restraining the further publication of statements about him through the Meta Ad tool.
Before he can proceed, he requires Meta to provide him with subscriber information relating to the adverts.
On Friday, Paul O’Higgins SC, for Mr O’Brien, told Mr Justice Mark Sanfey that considerable progress had been made between the parties and it had been agreed an order could be made that the information be provided.
However, the making of the order should be deferred until next week because Meta says it will not be in a position to have a schedule of the particular ads appended to the order until then.
Mr O’Higgins said his client was also waiting for basic subscriber information so it can identify who is behind the ads in order to serve proceedings on them outside the jurisdiction. Meta had agreed to provide this, it just had not done so yet, he said.
It would appear from the Meta library that there are no more than ten subscribers who are responsible for the very large number of ads involved, he said. If his side was to get the information it requires in relation to the months of August, September and October of last year, that would take the urgency out of the matter, he said.
Mr O’Higgins also expressed his concern that under the Digital Services Act, this information should be readily available but was not.
Clare Hogan BL, for Meta, said there was a complex process involved in checking who paid for the ads and the account numbers but her side would be in a position to have this information next week. She could also update the court next week in relation to Mr O’Higgins’ other concerns.
Mr Justice Sanfey said from what Ms Hogan said, Meta was doing everything it can, although it may not be what is required by law, but that was a matter for another day.
He adjourned it to next week when he said he hoped to hear there was significant progress between the parties.
- Sign up for push alerts and have the best news, analysis and comment delivered directly to your phone
- Join The Irish Times on WhatsApp and stay up to date
- Listen to our Inside Politics podcast for the best political chat and analysis
